Look at this 2 play sequence and guess the call - refs blew it

[Green26]

http://www.egriz.com/grizboard/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=65324

[mvemjsunpx]

Yep. That was on the level of the NAU "safety" from 2010.

[Texas]

http://www.egriz.com/grizboard/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=65324

Welcome to every SLC game!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)

[Texas]

This same crew that officiated SHSU vs EWU that contributed to at least two EWU scores, phantom fumble against SHSU and the terrible acting on a flop by Cooper Kupp. That's just one game.


http://youtu.be/i8hEZ1Bhcbw
"Not indisputable evidence"


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)

[dudeitsaid]

That was just wrong! If a play is in doubt, it should never be allowed to progress to the next play. I thought once the ball was snapped for the next play, a review was not longer an option. That's why teams are in such a hurry after a questionable play to get the next play off.

What was the outcome of the series? As it sure looked like it would have been a TD after Canada's run.

[Green26]

That was just wrong! If a play is in doubt, it should never be allowed to progress to the next play. I thought once the ball was snapped for the next play, a review was not longer an option. That's why teams are in such a hurry after a questionable play to get the next play off.

What was the outcome of the series? As it sure looked like it would have been a TD after Canada's run.

UM didn't score. Stopped on 4th down. Was in the 3d q. Hurt UM's momentum. UM had scored on the first series of the 3d q. Think this was the 2d series of the 3d q.

[Squealofthepig]

In other news, the Glasses Ref is retiring (though I can't find a great source, just news on various blogs/twitter/reddit).

[Red & Black]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)

You're so full of ****. Glad you lost today.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)

[Texas]

You're so full of ****. Glad you lost today.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)

Ok?

Still better than you.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)

[Red & Black]

Ok?

Still better than you.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)

Nope.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)

[Red & Black]

BTW, total BS call. Doubt it was the difference in the game, though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)

[Texas]

Nope.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)

Last time I checked SHSU beat EWU.

Can't help we play in a competitive conference.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)

[Red & Black]

Last time I checked SHSU beat EWU.

Can't help we play in a competitive conference.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)

Yes, you did, congrats on that since it appears that's your one good win of the season. We've improved since that game and have rattled off 9 straight wins since then, while it appears Sam Houston has regressed. You also played plenty of cupcakes this season, so don't give me that conference BS. Either way, the better team is still playing in the playoffs, as it should be.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)

[Texas]

Yes, you did, congrats on that since it appears that's your one good win of the season. We've improved since that game and have rattled off 9 straight wins since then, while it appears Sam Houston has regressed. You also played plenty of cupcakes this season, so don't give me that conference BS. Either way, the better team is still playing in the playoffs, as it should be.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)

You can defend Big Sky all day long but we got two crushing wins from your conference. Can't help one side of the bracket is stacked ;)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)

[Green26]

BTW, total BS call. Doubt it was the difference in the game, though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)

Perhaps it wasn't the difference in the game, but it essentially took away 7 points at a critical momentum time in the middle of the 3d quarter in a 7 point game.

[Red & Black]

Perhaps it wasn't the difference in the game, but it essentially took away 7 points at a critical momentum time in the middle of the 3d quarter in a 7 point game.

Well, it wasn't a TD that was called back, but I get your drift. Still, UM had a 1st down with 4 plays to get into the EZ, and nobody stepped up to do it, which is why I say it probably wasn't the difference in the game. Definitely a bad call, but it is what it is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)

[rokamortis]

Our beat writer on the call:


Controversial call

One official’s decision proved especially frustrating for Montana on Saturday, and after the game the Grizzlies were still shaking their heads about it.
Midway through the third quarter, with Coastal leading 42-21, junior quarterback Jordan Johnson threw an 18-yard completion to junior Sean Haynes to get Montana down to the Chants’ 17.
The Grizzlies then appeared to pick up 14 yards to the 3 on a run by junior Jordan Canada, but after the play, the officials decided to review Haynes’ catch. Montana’s sideline rightfully couldn’t understand how a play was being reviewed after another play had already been completed.

Haynes’ catch was upheld, but as a result of the review Canada’s run was taken away even though the play had not been blown dead prior to its completion. Fans started throwing some debris on the field and loud boos rang out through the stadium.

Montana wouldn’t recover on that drive, picking up only four more yards and throwing an incompletion on fourth down to end the possession with no points.
Referee Ken Ray of the Southland Conference explained the decision after the game to a pool reporter.

“Obviously it’s technology and we’re all dependent on getting paged,” Ray said. “When we got paged, some of us got paged it came through after the snap. At that point in time, we came together and I asked for clarification from anybody, ‘Did anybody get paged prior to the snap?’ One guy did say he did, so at that point in time by rule we have to go back and we have to review the play. Everybody on the crew has a page. Some of us got paged, [but] it came through after [the next play had begun].”

Bruce Bayne, a replay official, expanded on the decision.
“The way it works is there’s three of us in the booth working together and I was told that the center had come over the ball. At that time I paged the field,” Bayne said. “I’m not in charge of the technology. All I know is that when I heard that the center was over the ball, I paged [and] at least one official received the page.”
The Grizzlies were especially frustrated after losing the game by a single touchdown.

When Montana coach Mick Delaney was asked about that moment in the postgame news conference, the players to his side began shaking their head.

“In football, there’s so many people involved in making decisions. We don’t always make the right ones on the sideline, the coaches, and I think obviously they made a mistake probably on that call,” Delaney said. “… That hurts, but there’s a lot of things in that game other than that.”


http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/2013/12/07/3890457/weather-no-factor-after-all-for.html

[Green26]

Well, it wasn't a TD that was called back, but I get your drift. Still, UM had a 1st down with 4 plays to get into the EZ, and nobody stepped up to do it, which is why I say it probably wasn't the difference in the game. Definitely a bad call, but it is what it is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)

4 plays from the 2 or 3 is different that 4 from the 17. Do you agree? Taking away a big play can be disheartening. Do you agree?

[Red & Black]

4 plays from the 2 or 3 is different that 4 from the 17. Do you agree? Taking away a big play can be disheartening. Do you agree?

I do agree, and have been there many times before. I'm just saying I think you're making more out of it than what it is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)

[Green26]

Our beat writer on the call:



http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/2013/12/07/3890457/weather-no-factor-after-all-for.html

The rule doesn't say that the play stops upon the page. It says that the play stops when the officials receive the page and then stop the play before the snap. Not a single ref make any attempt to stop the play. The officials didn't stop the next play before the snap. They should all be banned from ever officiating another ncaa football game.

[Green26]

I do agree, and have been there many times before. I'm just saying I think you're making more out of it than what it is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)

I'm saying it was a completely blown call. It is highly like it cost UM a TD at a critical time. The difference in the game was 7 points. Feel free to explain, in detail, why this wasn't an important call/play.

[uofmman1122]

Gotta agree with Green on this one.

Every Griz player was visibly upset about it.

Coastal's AD even grilled the refs after the game.

We we had many other chances to win, but that doesn't mean that what happened wasn't embarrassing and utterly inexcusable.

[caribbeanhen]

sorry Griz fans, the refs weren't the ones that blew yesterday

[KNUTS]

Gotta give Coastal all the credit in this one. I thought the Griz were gonna roll with the way the game started then the 80 yard bomb and the 2nd qtr. Im proud of the Griz for putting up a fight. The call was inexcusable and they didnt put any time back on the clock after the crap they pulled. Just shows how inept they were! But the team that won was very impressive and deserve to move on and hopefully give NDSU all they can handle.

[Red & Black]

I'm saying it was a completely blown call. It is highly like it cost UM a TD at a critical time. The difference in the game was 7 points. Feel free to explain, in detail, why this wasn't an important call/play.

Yeah, and I'm agreeing with you. It was a blown call. That's football, even in the playoffs where there is replay there are still mistakes that are made. It happens all the time in games...all the time. Montana has benefited from egregious calls in the past, too.

But what I am mostly saying is that there were many other reasons that Montana lost that game, as opposed to what you seem to be trying to quantify as a singular reason. Momentum shift, whatever you want to call it...no doubt. The fact remains that even after the bad call, Montana had a 1st down on the 17 yard line and 4 plays to get into the end zone, and it didn't happen. To think that this was the key difference in the game is just kind of silly, IMO. I would be more upset about my pass defense, etc. that couldn't seem to stop anything than focusing all of my emotional energy on one bad call in the game that was made. The game is played for 60 minutes, you know what I mean?

[FCS Go!]

Yes, it was the worst call I've ever seen but the Griz had plenty of chances AFTER that call and didn't get it done.

[Green26]

Yeah, and I'm agreeing with you. It was a blown call. That's football, even in the playoffs where there is replay there are still mistakes that are made. It happens all the time in games...all the time. Montana has benefited from egregious calls in the past, too.

But what I am mostly saying is that there were many other reasons that Montana lost that game, as opposed to what you seem to be trying to quantify as a singular reason. Momentum shift, whatever you want to call it...no doubt. The fact remains that even after the bad call, Montana had a 1st down on the 17 yard line and 4 plays to get into the end zone, and it didn't happen. To think that this was the key difference in the game is just kind of silly, IMO. I would be more upset about my pass defense, etc. that couldn't seem to stop anything than focusing all of my emotional energy on one bad call in the game that was made. The game is played for 60 minutes, you know what I mean?

Who's saying it was "the singular reason" for the outcome of the game? Certainly, not me. There were multiple important plays, and UM had multiple other opportunities. However, the call was blatantly wrong and not consistent with officiating rules. And scoring from 1st and 3 when you've got the defense on its heals, and the momentum and crowd with you, is easier than scoring from the 17 after a 5-minute delay and getting screwed by the refs. Either don't respond, or just admit that I'm correct.

[Red & Black]

Who's saying it was "the singular reason" for the outcome of the game? Certainly, not me. There were multiple important plays, and UM had multiple other opportunities. However, the call was blatantly wrong and not consistent with officiating rules. And scoring from 1st and 3 when you've got the defense on its heals, and the momentum and crowd with you, is easier than scoring from the 17 after a 5-minute delay and getting screwed by the refs. Either don't respond, or just admit that I'm correct.

If you don't think it was the singular reason, then why are you making such a big deal about it? Yes, it was a bad call. Yes, it shifted momentum some. It wasn't the reason Montana lost. Time to move on...

[SIUSalukiFan]

Montana had given up 42 points by the third quarter and trailed by 21. The refs were not the biggest problem for the Griz.

[Green26]

Montana had given up 42 points by the third quarter and trailed by 21. The refs were not the biggest problem for the Griz.

True, but this screw up cost UM a TD in the 3d quarter when it was trying to gain momentum and come back, and UM lost the game by 7 points.

[Green26]

From Yahoo Sports:Referee review blunder in FCS playoff game
"the simple fact is that the review should have never been allowed by the referees on the field because the Grizzlies had already run another play."

"Those missed points were crucial as the Grizzlies eventually fell at home 42-35. Ouch."

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaaf-dr-saturday/referee-review-blunder-fcs-playoff-game-wipes-15-230302146--ncaaf.html

[SIUSalukiFan]

True, but this screw up cost UM a TD in the 3d quarter when it was trying to gain momentum and come back, and UM lost the game by 7 points.

That's lame. How about don't give up 42 points at home and you don't have to worry about anything?

[Green26]

That's lame. How about don't give up 42 points at home and you don't have to worry about anything?

No, it's not lame. It's an absolutely valid and correct thought. Also, CC is the 3d leading scoring team in FCS football this year, at 42.9. CC scored 3 TD's in 5.5 minutes at the end of the 2 quarter.

[SIUSalukiFan]

No, it's not lame. It's an absolutely valid and correct thought. Also, CC is the 3d leading scoring team in FCS football this year, at 42.9. CC scored 3 TD's in 5.5 minutes at the end of the 2 quarter.

It's just bad form for a seeded home team to complain about an official's call (even if it was bad) when it gives up 42 points to an unseeded team.

[Green26]

It's just bad form for a seeded home team to complain about an official's call (even if it was bad) when it gives up 42 points to an unseeded team.

Huh, this is the internet. A message board. It's made for discussion like this. The discussion has nothing to do with 42 points or being seeded.

[MTfan4life]

It's just bad form for a seeded home team to complain about an official's call (even if it was bad) when it gives up 42 points to an unseeded team.

It's bad form to believe that Green26 had any effect on how many points the Griz allowed on Saturday. He didn't play in the game. However, he did watch the game and should be able to ask people what they thought about this very rare scenario.

[dudeitsaid]

Last time I checked SHSU beat EWU.

Can't help we play in a competitive conference.


Awww, that's so cute. Great job, you beat EWU. Console yourself with that while your team sits at home on Saturday. xlolx


In regards to UM, who knows what would have happened if this call didn't take place. At the minimum, they would have had a 1st and goal very close to the goal line. Considering they lost by one score, who knows. Sucks when a call has such a dramatic effect on a game.

[dudeitsaid]

It's just bad form for a seeded home team to complain about an official's call (even if it was bad) when it gives up 42 points to an unseeded team.

That's easy to say from the outside perspective. If I was a Griz fan, I'd be fricken livid about this. That is one of the biggest blunders I've ever seen, in a playoff game no less! It was the ref's mistake, technology or not. Why in the world, once the catch was upheld would the following play that was aloud to be run in all honesty from all parts, offense, defense, and refs not be able to stand as well? The Griz absolutely had their issues, and there are a lot of things that they should have done better to win they game. But they still came within seven points of the win. And these playoff games can come down to such a hair's width difference when two evenly matched teams play one another that one event like this can have significant weight. It is what it is, and nothing will change the outcome. But it still sucks. I hate the feeling of "what might have been" after a big game like this. I guess we have some drama in these playoffs now!

[Jayjord]

It's just bad form for a seeded home team to complain about an official's call (even if it was bad) when it gives up 42 points to an unseeded team.

Let's say the review never happend and the griz score. Now let's flip it and say the big TD by their back gets called back because they decide to review a previous play. Tables are turned...griz win...and it costs CC the game. I would be pissed off too. Just because a team is down 21 at any point doesn't really mean anything. I guess they should have just ended the game at that point.

[dewey]

I am probably a little late but I just saw the youtube video. WOW! How the refs made that call to review the play was ridiculous. Not one of them made any motion to stop play as pointed out by the officials. That was a crucial point in the game.

Yes MT gave up 42 points and that was clearly a problem but they also scored 35 and lost by 7. You cannot directly say that if MT had scored they would have won but it allows the 'ifs and but's' to enter. Good for the CCU AD to question the refs after the game. As a fan I would rather see the call and play be made correctly whether it adversly affects my team or not.

A total crappy situation for the Griz team, coaches and fans.

Dewey

[robsnotes4u]

Did that play make a difference, don't know. How about this play it is 4th and 9 in the third quarter. The Griz throw a pass it is ruled incomplete on about the 8 yard line. It is over turned by the replay officials, and as you can see he i juggling the ball on the way out of bounds. As the announcers say definitely not a catch. By rule you need "indisputable video evidence". Did this play make a difference? Definitely it would have been turned over on downs. Instead the Griz score four plays later, making the score 35-21 instead of 35-14.


http://youtu.be/SJ2vnxTJqrM

[nwFL Griz]

Did that play make a difference, don't know. How about this play it is 4th and 9 in the third quarter. The Griz throw a pass it is ruled incomplete on about the 8 yard line. It is over turned by the replay officials, and as you can see he i juggling the ball on the way out of bounds. As the announcers say definitely not a catch. By rule you need "indisputable video evidence". Did this play make a difference? Definitely it would have been turned over on downs. Instead the Griz score four plays later, making the score 35-21 instead of 35-14.


http://youtu.be/SJ2vnxTJqrM

I'm sorry, where is he juggling the ball? Looks like he has it secure the whole time.

[robsnotes4u]

I'm sorry, where is he juggling the ball? Looks like he has it secure the whole time.

You have got to be kidding. Go watch a good clear video on ESPN3 like the announcers say it is obvious, and the left foot is down outside before he drags the right.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

[jmrepak]

I'm sorry, where is he juggling the ball? Looks like he has it secure the whole time.

@ 46 seconds and @ 1:12 you can see both of his hands off of the ball with his right foot down out of bounds.

Even if you say that you can't tell that his hands came off you sure can't tell that they didn't, and its supposed to be indisputable video evidence to overturn a call. That was not indisputable.

[walliver]

The real problem is that FCS does not allow video review during the regular season. As a result, most of these refs have absolutely no experience in instant replay. Refs experienced in instant replay would probably not have committed this error.

My personal feeling, which is most likely a minority opinion, is that instant replay is harming the game. It breaks up the flow of the game and destroys momentum. Refs make mistakes, but their error generally even out over the course of a game.

[nwFL Griz]

Agree to disagree. I think he clearly has the ball and is dragging his right foot before the left touches down. And Rob, I couldn't care less what the f---ing announcers say. They said alot of stupid crap throughout, so what makes them right in this particular case?

[Missingnumber7]

The real problem is that FCS does not allow video review during the regular season. As a result, most of these refs have absolutely no experience in instant replay. Refs experienced in instant replay would probably not have committed this error.

My personal feeling, which is most likely a minority opinion, is that instant replay is harming the game. It breaks up the flow of the game and destroys momentum. Refs make mistakes, but their error generally even out over the course of a game.FBS Replay officials are used. But I agree that as a college fb official (NAIA) that replay is hurting College football. The NFL setup is much better because it is someone who is calling the game and aware of what is and isn't happening and not just a guy in a booth watching the ball like everyone at home.

[wapiti]

This is the type of play calling the Griz fans want.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0

[robsnotes4u]

This is the type of play calling the Griz fans want.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0

That is hilarious!

- - - Updated - - -


Agree to disagree. I think he clearly has the ball and is dragging his right foot before the left touches down. And Rob, I couldn't care less what the f---ing announcers say. They said alot of stupid crap throughout, so what makes them right in this particular case?

What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

[robsnotes4u]

Agree to disagree. I think he clearly has the ball and is dragging his right foot before the left touches down. And Rob, I couldn't care less what the f---ing announcers say. They said alot of stupid crap throughout, so what makes them right in this particular case?

Ok, then we will just see what the Griz faithful say in the EGriz Game Thread immedialtely after the catch.


18643

18644

[Walkon79]

They also overturned a "no catch" call on 4th and 9, and the Griz scored 4 plays later. I watched that one numerous times on replay and IMO it was too close to reverse the original decision that the Griz receiver was bobbling the ball and was out of bounds before he gained control. There's the 7 points back, so its a wash.

(Edited to add that I was a little late to the party on this one) :(

[ursus arctos horribilis]

Ok, then we will just see what the Griz faithful say in the EGriz Game Thread immedialtely after the catch.


18643

18644

What did the guy at the drive thru say about it?

[robsnotes4u]

I did ask the guy at Wendy's today who had a Griz hat on. He laughed about the game, said it was embarrassing for the Griz. I said over rated? He said definitely. We both laughed.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

The refs were not the difference in this game we lost and it could have been by a lot more. CCU is a better team and they have a great coaching staff.

The game is over and we lost.

[BisonBacker]

Bottom line regardless of ratings and such is that the officials screwed up big time on that call. Didn't see the game or any other questionable calls but officials are supposed to be there to make sure things are done right and per the rules. They are not the ones who are supposed to be goofing them up. It's not like this was a judgement call on a questionable play that you could defend the official one way or the other. This was clearly done after the fact ie. to late. Once the next play was run with no officials trying to stop it ie allowing a subsequent play to be ran you can't go back and review what happened 2 plays ago. This isn't officiating 101 guys this is a FCS playoff game. Officials are supposed to at least understand when the rules are enforced and how to enforce them. Not totally botch the rules and start reviewing plays that happened 2 or 3 plays ago. It doesn't work that way. There is no excuse for that kind of officiating at any level let alone the FCS playoffs. Wow.

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

That's lame. How about don't give up 42 points at home and you don't have to worry about anything?

1000000% correct

We got beat by a better team.

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

Did that play make a difference, don't know. How about this play it is 4th and 9 in the third quarter. The Griz throw a pass it is ruled incomplete on about the 8 yard line. It is over turned by the replay officials, and as you can see he i juggling the ball on the way out of bounds. As the announcers say definitely not a catch. By rule you need "indisputable video evidence". Did this play make a difference? Definitely it would have been turned over on downs. Instead the Griz score four plays later, making the score 35-21 instead of 35-14.


http://youtu.be/SJ2vnxTJqrM

Agreed, this was definitely NOT a catch.

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

The real problem is that FCS does not allow video review during the regular season. As a result, most of these refs have absolutely no experience in instant replay. Refs experienced in instant replay would probably not have committed this error.

My personal feeling, which is most likely a minority opinion, is that instant replay is harming the game. It breaks up the flow of the game and destroys momentum. Refs make mistakes, but their error generally even out over the course of a game.

There should be no replay in sports period.

The idea of it is good but the way they screw up the calls anyway is reason enough to scrap it. I like the human error portion of games even if it occasionally goes against my team. I believe the refs are better when they have to make on the fly decisions they know wont be reviewed. Its more pure.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

I did ask the guy at Wendy's today who had a Griz hat on. He laughed about the game, said it was embarrassing for the Griz. I said over rated? He said definitely. We both laughed.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

Yeah well I wouldn't say either of you are far off. Thing is you have an axe to grind with egriz and it would be nice if you stopped trying to grind it here when it's that place that you have the issue with.

But hey you have great sources for your arguments that you want to start so please feel free to keep trying to turn this place into your egriz griping spot...it's really great man.

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

Rob is completely right when it comes to the other site.......................

BOOM!!! In Your Face Grizo!!!!!!

[ursus arctos horribilis]

Rob is completely right when it comes to the other site.......................

BOOM!!! In Your Face Grizo!!!!!!

I don't give a **** if he is. I avoid it because it is not for me. No knock on it, I just would rather have the less homer style conversations and so forth but if we have to keep dragging whatever garbage over here all the time and trying to pretend that is what the Griz fans here are saying then I guess we'll have two places for all that.

Cross dressing isn't for me but I can understand and accept you fella's if it's what we're into now. Just wanted to see if we really have to do it that way.xthumbsupx

[Darlinikki150]

I purused ye ol eGriz yesterday, very entertaining to say the least. But from what I understand Bison ville isn't much better. Rabid fans will be, well rabid regardless of the topic.

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

I don't give a **** if he is. I avoid it because it is not for me. No knock on it, I just would rather have the less homer style conversations and so forth but if we have to keep dragging whatever garbage over here all the time and trying to pretend that is what the Griz fans here are saying then I guess we'll have two places for all that.

Cross dressing isn't for me but I can understand and accept you fella's if it's what we're into now. Just wanted to see if we really have to do it that way.xthumbsupx

Is this your really subtle way of asking me to stop doing what I normally do so damn well?

xcoffeex



P.S. And you do care if Rob is right or you wouldnt have commented on it.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

Is this your really subtle way of asking me to stop doing what I normally do so damn well?

xcoffeex



P.S. And you do care if Rob is right or you wouldnt have commented on it.

I don't need to ask you subtly. I've asked you straight up. And I don't care that his right or wrong on that particular point. I care that I'm right.

[putter]

I was more pissed about Nate Harris getting torched after the Griz marched down for an opening score. More pissed about both Schmaing and Wilson blowing a block on the same guy to get JJ hit and throw the pic after getting a needed turnover deep in CC territory. Pissed that CC scored on a 51 yard run - RIGHT UP THE GUT. Pissed that Tully crapped the bed again on tackles on said 51 yard run and CC 2nd quarter run where he had position and got juked....much more disturbing things than replays....

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

I don't need to ask you subtly. I've asked you straight up. And I don't care that his right or wrong on that particular point. I care that I'm right.

Are you


BOOM!! In Your Face Grizo!!!!

[ursus arctos horribilis]

Are you


BOOM!! In Your Face Grizo!!!!

Man, you are nailing that smurf today!

[robsnotes4u]

Yeah well I wouldn't say either of you are far off. Thing is you have an axe to grind with egriz and it would be nice if you stopped trying to grind it here when it's that place that you have the issue with.

But hey you have great sources for your arguments that you want to start so please feel free to keep trying to turn this place into your egriz griping spot...it's really great man.

I apologize if I offended you, I am not bringing egriz onto this site. I was showing that calls go both ways, and the game was not decided by refs. It was played by individuals, the Griz didn't lose. They were defeated, by a better team. If I remember CCU ran out the clock on the last drive ending about the 15. They more than likely would have scored there.

It is ok to say you were beat by a better team.

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

Man, you are nailing that smurf today!

I feel guilty that I took it so easy on him Saturday..................

[catbob]

I find the whole review thing perplexing myself, as many others do.

But there seems to be a consensus among Griz fans that the overturned catch was an obvious catch. I watched it on ESPN3 multiple times and there is no way that is a catch. He briefly bobbles the ball, plants a foot out of bounds then secures it and drags the other foot. What is even more perplexing to me is that they ruled it incomplete and OVERTURNED it. Even if you are unsure, there is no way that is conclusive evidence to overturn it.

[Green26]

Did that play make a difference, don't know. How about this play it is 4th and 9 in the third quarter. The Griz throw a pass it is ruled incomplete on about the 8 yard line. It is over turned by the replay officials, and as you can see he i juggling the ball on the way out of bounds. As the announcers say definitely not a catch. By rule you need "indisputable video evidence". Did this play make a difference? Definitely it would have been turned over on downs. Instead the Griz score four plays later, making the score 35-21 instead of 35-14.


http://youtu.be/SJ2vnxTJqrM

He controlled the ball while his right foot was down inbounds and before the other foot came down. That's why it got reversed. "The receiver had possession of the ball while his right foot was done in bounds" is what the official said, or something like that.

[Green26]

@ 46 seconds and @ 1:12 you can see both of his hands off of the ball with his right foot down out of bounds.

Even if you say that you can't tell that his hands came off you sure can't tell that they didn't, and its supposed to be indisputable video evidence to overturn a call. That was not indisputable.

Even if that were true, and I don't think it is, you don't need to have 2 hands on the ball to control it.

[Green26]

I find the whole review thing perplexing myself, as many others do.

But there seems to be a consensus among Griz fans that the overturned catch was an obvious catch. I watched it on ESPN3 multiple times and there is no way that is a catch. He briefly bobbles the ball, plants a foot out of bounds then secures it and drags the other foot. What is even more perplexing to me is that they ruled it incomplete and OVERTURNED it. Even if you are unsure, there is no way that is conclusive evidence to overturn it.

It's a catch and his right foot is down the whole time. Get some glasses.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

I apologize if I offended you, I am not bringing egriz onto this site. I was showing that calls go both ways, and the game was not decided by refs. It was played by individuals, the Griz didn't lose. They were defeated, by a better team. If I remember CCU ran out the clock on the last drive ending about the 15. They more than likely would have scored there.

It is ok to say you were beat by a better team.

It would also be OK for you to recognize that this last statement is the overwhelming number of Griz fans that have commented on this. I've had a couple of discussions with you in which you've tried to bring something from egriz and make it some point of contention because of whatever you have suffered there. You've even said thanks for being civil in the discussions. I just don't get the trying to poison the well here with things the majority here are not saying.

Eh, I shoulda just not posted in any of these troll type situations and it's my fault for doing so. If you feel like bringing your egriz thing here have at it I guess.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

I find the whole review thing perplexing myself, as many others do.

But there seems to be a consensus among Griz fans that the overturned catch was an obvious catch. I watched it on ESPN3 multiple times and there is no way that is a catch. He briefly bobbles the ball, plants a foot out of bounds then secures it and drags the other foot. What is even more perplexing to me is that they ruled it incomplete and OVERTURNED it. Even if you are unsure, there is no way that is conclusive evidence to overturn it.

That last part is the part I specifically agree with. If the call on the field had been catch and it stood I can see that as it's pretty close but overturning it I can't see that there is enough to do that but it does look close to me. Probably because I want it to be but can't help that.

[Grizo406]

I feel guilty that I took it so easy on him Saturday..................

Thanks for the mention, ALPHA!

You're THE BEST!!

[SeattleGriz]

1000000% correct

We got beat by a better team.

This is what I keep saying. Can't give up 42 and blame one instance on the loss.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4

[Green26]

This is what I keep saying. Can't give up 42 and blame one instance on the loss.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4

What does discussing a blown call by refs have to do with giving up 42 points? There's zero connection between them. Some of you must have serious ADD.

[Nova09]

All this "outrage" is ridiculous. How any football fan who follows the sport as closely as most on this board do could watch those events and not immediately understand what happened is beyond me. The decision was made before the play that the previous play would be reviewed; therefore, the play in question never happened as part of the game.

Haven't you ever seen a play where the play clock was running out and it seemed to hit zero and then the snap gets off and a play is run but then the back judge comes running in from 40 yards away and talks to the referee, and then the ref gets on his mic and says "Prior to the snap, delay of game, offense." Would you argue that they can't decide it is a delay of game because they already let the play happen? No! They decided before the play happened that it was delay of game, or at least on of the officials did, and so the play effectively never did happen in the first place.

Or what about when a coach calls timeout right before a fg attempt at the end of a game? When the kicker follows through on the kick anyway should we all just say oh well even though coach said "timeout" and the official heard him and granted the timeout there wasn't a whistle fast enough so we should just take the result of the play? No! The decision was already made that a timeout had been granted, regardless if the 22 players on the field knew that decision.

[Grizalltheway]

All this "outrage" is ridiculous. How any football fan who follows the sport as closely as most on this board do could watch those events and not immediately understand what happened is beyond me. The decision was made before the play that the previous play would be reviewed; therefore, the play in question never happened as part of the game.

Then they should have stopped play before the next play was snapped. Even in the NFL you'll see teams rush up to the LOS before there's a chance for the play to be reviewed or challanged.

[Green26]

All this "outrage" is ridiculous. How any football fan who follows the sport as closely as most on this board do could watch those events and not immediately understand what happened is beyond me. The decision was made before the play that the previous play would be reviewed; therefore, the play in question never happened as part of the game.

Haven't you ever seen a play where the play clock was running out and it seemed to hit zero and then the snap gets off and a play is run but then the back judge comes running in from 40 yards away and talks to the referee, and then the ref gets on his mic and says "Prior to the snap, delay of game, offense." Would you argue that they can't decide it is a delay of game because they already let the play happen? No! They decided before the play happened that it was delay of game, or at least on of the officials did, and so the play effectively never did happen in the first place.

Or what about when a coach calls timeout right before a fg attempt at the end of a game? When the kicker follows through on the kick anyway should we all just say oh well even though coach said "timeout" and the official heard him and granted the timeout there wasn't a whistle fast enough so we should just take the result of the play? No! The decision was already made that a timeout had been granted, regardless if the 22 players on the field knew that decision.

It doesn't matter if the replay official makes the decision before the start of the next play. It has to be communicated to the on-field officials and they have to stop the next play from happening. The majority of the on-field officials have stated that they did not get the page before the next play. No on-field official made any attempt to stop the net play. The next play had been completed for several minutes, before the on-field officials decided what they would do. Total blunder by incompetent officials. Read the rules before you make dumb and incorrect statements.

[Nova09]

Read the rules before you make dumb and incorrect statements.

Read what actually happened before you make dumb and incorrect assumptions. Like I said, this should have been obvious to anyone who follows football. Some officials got paged that the play was under review, others (including the referee) did not. The line judges/back judge/umpire who got paged may not have been ready for the play, thinking the referee got the page as he was supposed to and would stop play. Ultimately it is the referee who stops play. After the play, those who got the page conferred with the referee, who never got the page but said as long as someone did then by rule the play could not happen. For all you know the back judge or umpire told the defensive players the play was under review so they should ease up/get out of their stance and then that's when the ball was snapped, catching them off guard.

http://newstalkkgvo.com/referee-explanation-of-controversial-call-in-montana-grizzly-coastal-carolina-football-game/

[Nova09]

Then they should have stopped play before the next play was snapped. Even in the NFL you'll see teams rush up to the LOS before there's a chance for the play to be reviewed or challanged.

I agree they should have, and the fact that they didn't is obviously why this is even being discussed. But like my delay of game example, sometimes they just can't communicate to the players fast enough to stop playing. It gets loud on that field and whistles aren't always heard or sometimes the official fumbles with the whistle a little before actually getting it to his mouth. The point is the replay official decided the play would be reviewed and paged the on-field officials; not all officials got the page but at least one did, effectively preventing a next play from happening; the players did not know the officials had been paged, so they ran a meaningless play. The officials can't just say "oh well screw CCU" they have to review the play as was already decided.

[Green26]

Read what actually happened before you make dumb and incorrect assumptions. Like I said, this should have been obvious to anyone who follows football. Some officials got paged that the play was under review, others (including the referee) did not. The line judges/back judge/umpire who got paged may not have been ready for the play, thinking the referee got the page as he was supposed to and would stop play. Ultimately it is the referee who stops play. After the play, those who got the page conferred with the referee, who never got the page but said as long as someone did then by rule the play could not happen. For all you know the back judge or umpire told the defensive players the play was under review so they should ease up/get out of their stance and then that's when the ball was snapped, catching them off guard.

http://newstalkkgvo.com/referee-explanation-of-controversial-call-in-montana-grizzly-coastal-carolina-football-game/

No, you read it--and you should read the applicable rules. The article you link says that one on-field official, not "some" officials, said they had gotten the page before the snap. None of the other on-field issues said they received a page before the snap. The play was not stopped. That is undisputed. Receiving a page does not stop a play. That can only be done by the on-field officials. The official's comment in this article about the rule is incorrect. That is the point. He and the other officials apparently didn't know the rule. The rules say that review officials initiates the process, and pages the on-field officials to stop the next play. The play is to be stopped prior to the snap. It wasn't. The rules also say the only the prior play can be reviewed. So, if the next play is not stopped and occurs, the play 2 plays earlier cannot be reviewed.

Also, no official stated that he blew or tried to blow his whistle, so stop making up stuff.

[Green26]

I agree they should have, and the fact that they didn't is obviously why this is even being discussed. But like my delay of game example, sometimes they just can't communicate to the players fast enough to stop playing. It gets loud on that field and whistles aren't always heard or sometimes the official fumbles with the whistle a little before actually getting it to his mouth. The point is the replay official decided the play would be reviewed and paged the on-field officials; not all officials got the page but at least one did, effectively preventing a next play from happening; the players did not know the officials had been paged, so they ran a meaningless play. The officials can't just say "oh well screw CCU" they have to review the play as was already decided.

Almost everything you just said is not correct. Stop spewing incorrect information and nonsense.